I think you were one of the first posters to bring up the term traditional method, so I'll leave that off topic to you.

Okay, addressing the last part of your post: pick any of the thirteen topics you listed. Compare what you consider to be a traditional method, and compare it to your method. I'm surprised that you didn't get to that in your wall of text

Hail is right, youve made yourself comfortable here

PS I promise you won't be teaching me anything (if unpaid teaching is uncomfortable) since I already know the names of notes on a fretboard

Last PS I swear. It's very hard for me to give you an example of a "traditional" teaching method for you tocompare, because I never use the term traditional teaching method, and I didn't bring it up in this thread. That's why I'm hoping you will provide an example, since you seem to have so many issues with it

I was the first poster to bring up the Traditional Method, its a concept and moniker I used to make a statement.

On my last point of the post. I laid out specific conditions in a variable format, a template to follow, if you will, to get the information that you're asking about, as far as "What do you mean by traditional method?"

Hail is right about a great many things, and I respect his knowledge and contributions to many topics, and he's a great contributor here.

Re your first PS: Your first part of that promise was correct.

I'm glad you know the notes on the fretboard. It's a great skillset to have, especially if you want to immediately apply theory, as you go.

Re your last PS: I'm not going to be able to help you, if you cannot come up with a sentence. The concept obviously is benign, and unimportant, so let it go, and acknowledge that you don't understand what I could possibly mean, and let's move on.

I know beyond all shadow of a doubt that it doesn't TAKE years. It absolutely does not take years....

Sean

You sur have given me loads to think about

In an ideal situation, a kid could be given his first guitar and placed into an ideal environment where he would exceed quite quickly. For example, Dahani Harrison grew up surrounded by very talented and hard working musicians who would've helped him develop.

I was the first poster to bring up the Traditional Method, its a concept and moniker I used to make a statement.

On my last point of the post. I laid out specific conditions in a variable format, a template to follow, if you will, to get the information that you're asking about, as far as "What do you mean by traditional method?"

Sean

Actually, what you said was,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean0913

Everything in the traditional method, sucks, and is worthless.

But a few of the more tenacious and perseverant, or fortunate enough to attend music school where you will be forced to swallow that approach or else drop out, and hence fail...will get through it, by necessity, and go on to carry the Kool Aid to others.

And the world will continue to turn, and it won't matter if you do it right on day one; most will give homage to the Traditional Method, ultimately, and the sacrifice and acsetical demands it makes of them.

Sean

Nothing about what methods you dont like, just that you dont like them. Its difficult to lie about what you said when quoting is so easy on UG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean0913

Re your last PS: I'm not going to be able to help you, if you cannot come up with a sentence. The concept obviously is benign, and unimportant, so let it go, and acknowledge that you don't understand what I could possibly mean, and let's move on.

Best,

Sean

An appeal to grammar? How base, and a convenient way to avoid a perfectly good question.

The main problem I have with your posting in this thread is that you posted this list of "teaching methods."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean0913

1. How Players are taught to memorize the notes on the neck.
2. Everything found at musictheory.net, and how its taught
3. Pentatonic 5 box scales
4. CAGED
5. Method of learning Intervals
6. Method of learning scales, (that WWH junk)
7. Method of naming all the notes in any chord
8. Circle of 5ths
9. Key signatures
10. Basic beginning chords and how they are taught
11. Sight reading
12. Diatonic Harmony
13. Modes (don't get me started there)

Sean

How is "circle of 5ths" a teaching method. What do you consider to be the traditional way of teaching the circle of 5ths, and how is your way better. Very simple question that you should be able to answer in one or two paragraphs. Seriously, what is your method, and what is the method you are comparing to.

You're telling players to disregard something which may not exist, and replace it with a pedagogy that you wont reveal

I have some students who rip right along using traditional methods. I certainly do not use traditional materials for all my students but those who use the traditional materials end up far more well rounded than those who do not but make no stellar progress in any one area at a time.

Hey Vlasco! Good to see you man! Thanks for your comments!

When you say well rounded, are you speaking of sight reading and such?

I sightread. But I have long held that sight reading for the most part is useless, for most people on guitar. You can function perfectly without it, and theory can be understood and applied correctly, without sight reading abilities.

I think you need it if:

1. You're planning on going into Jazz, ensembles etc. Must of that music is istll in standard notation.

2. You're going into classical guitar, though most classical guitar studies use a notation specific to classical guitar.

3. You're going to be a composer, work with orchestration, etc. Counterpoint, SATB, chorale, etc.

4. You're going to be a studio musician and working with the bandleader, producer and studio time is money (think Tommy Tedesco, Brent Mason, Carl Verheyen and Dan Huff)

5. You need it because you plan on auditioning and enrolling in a music school. As you may recall, in the time I've been here on UG I've "boot camped" 5 people from on here, in that skillset, to get them where they passed their auditions. So, even in a pinch, contextually, we were able to get them ready with their sight reading to get entrance.

6. It's personally meaningful to you.

I agree that conceptually it makes you well rounded, but in my professional opinion, as a teacher, the time should be expended if you're actually going to need it, and use it, proportional to the time that it takes to become proficient at it. If you're not going to be immediately applying it, I suggest that you spend time on things that you'll use today, and learn that skill in context with an interest that directly uses that, later on.

I've had students graduate, and turn around and then want to learn sightreading, because they already had everything else, and this sort of completed it for them, even if they weren't going to use it as much, it meant something to them.

^ classical guitar doesnt have special notation at all. The only thing I can even think of is the way the right hand fingerings are notated, but thats exactly the same as on piano (except done as alpha, instead of numeric) where P=1, I=2, M=3, A=4, and Q=5. Sometimes guitar reads two staves, but thats hardly unique

Nothing about what methods you dont like, just that you dont like them. Its difficult to lie about what you said when quoting is so easy on UG

An appeal to grammar? How base, and a convenient way to avoid a perfectly good question.

The main problem I have with your posting in this thread is that you posted this list of "teaching methods."

How is "circle of 5ths" a teaching method. What do you consider to be the traditional way of teaching the circle of 5ths, and how is your way better. Very simple question that you should be able to answer in one or two paragraphs. Seriously, what is your method, and what is the method you are comparing to.

You're telling players to disregard something which may not exist, and replace it with a pedagogy that you wont reveal

I didn't lie about anything. I agreed that I brought up the term in this thread. Perhaps you're not comprehending words and how they are put together to form ideas and opinions?

I don't see where I am required to state by name what methods I don't like. I thought it was a generally understood term, and that if each person had their "idea" of what that might encompass, that I would probably agree with them about their idea.

You think you have a "perfectly good question", do you? On what basis? The one giving it, or the one receiving it?

Circle of 5ths is a universal illustrative tool used in part, to teach key signatures. It's a concept and a method found everywhere. That definitely fits into the idea of "Traditional Method" as I stated.

To answer your question, I don't teach the circle of 5ths. Everything that you might suggest that the Co5 is designed to teach, they will already know, though other means. So, the Co5, as I see it, is useless, and pointless.

You're pursuing something that "may not exist", then, is that what you are saying?

That makes sense to you?

Are you doing likewise, with the Yeti, the Chupacabra, and the Loch Ness Monster?

^ classical guitar doesnt have special notation at all. The only thing I can even think of is the way the right hand fingerings are notated, but thats exactly the same as on piano (except done as alpha, instead of numeric) where P=1, I=2, M=3, A=4, and Q=5. Sometimes guitar reads two staves, but thats hardly unique

Why? As far as I know, if you're composing, you can take your time. It's not a real time thing like playing a song from sheet music. So why exactly do you need to be able to sight read?

Well, I think in general you're more likely going to find places where it's more convenient and applicable to use it. Composition programs, Sibelius, if you're going to be managing scores for other musicians to know what to play, etc. I'm talking about, movies, soundtracks, video games, etc. Not composing in the informal sense.

I didn't lie about anything. I agreed that I brought up the term in this thread. Perhaps you're not comprehending words and how they are put together to form ideas and opinions?

Sean

You said that in your original post you named pedagogy techniques you disagree with. You didnt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean0913

I don't see where I am required to state by name what methods I don't like. I thought it was a generally understood term, and that if each person had their "idea" of what that might encompass, that I would probably agree with them about their idea.

Sean

Your not required. Its not understood, it was never defined by you or anyone else. So you would leave it to guess work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean0913

You think you have a "perfectly good question", do you? On what basis? The one giving it, or the one receiving it?

Sean

On the basis that you said "I dont like traditional methods," so I asked you what traditional methods are

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean0913

Circle of 5ths is a universal illustrative tool used in part, to teach key signatures. It's a concept and a method found everywhere. That definitely fits into the idea of "Traditional Method" as I stated.

To answer your question, I don't teach the circle of 5ths. Everything that you might suggest that the Co5 is designed to teach, they will already know, though other means. So, the Co5, as I see it, is useless, and pointless.

Sean

Teach me what a Pythagorean comma is without describing the circle of 5ths. After all, this is the original reason the circle of 5ths was important

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean0913

You're pursuing something that "may not exist", then, is that what you are saying?

That makes sense to you?

Are you doing likewise, with the Yeti, the Chupacabra, and the Loch Ness Monster?

How many possible non existent things do you like to chase, exactly?

Best,

Sean

I am not pursuing anything, I am trying to define the terms you are using. Unfortunately, this board is for theory discussion, not conspiracies.

What I AM learning is that your teaching method must leave students with a lot of dead ends, and doesnt equip them to understand the literature and concepts they will need to master after theyve moved on from taking lessons with you.

EDIT:

^Reported for double post

Regarding your double post, the exception proves the rule. Literally nothing about classical guitar notation is different from any other notation, except that the fingers are named with letters instead of numbers. If you can name any other differences, Ill believe that you werent talking out your arse

You said that in your original post you named pedagogy techniques you disagree with. You didnt

Your not required. Its not understood, it was never defined by you or anyone else. So you would leave it to guess work?

On the basis that you said "I dont like traditional methods," so I asked you what traditional methods are

Teach me what a Pythagorean comma is without describing the circle of 5ths. After all, this is the original reason the circle of 5ths was important

I am not pursuing anything, I am trying to define the terms you are using. Unfortunately, this board is for theory discussion, not conspiracies.

What I AM learning is that your teaching method must leave students with a lot of dead ends, and doesnt equip them to understand the literature and concepts they will need to master after theyve moved on from taking lessons with you.

EDIT:

^Reported for double post

1. Nope that's not what happened.

2. I would leave it to guess work. I am comfortable with that.

3. That question was answered.

4. Tell me what relevance it has to someone that plays guitar.

5. You are pursuing, because you keep asking about something that "may not exist"

6. If that's what you're learning, I'd find cause to suggest that you should re-examine your criteria for learning.

Literature and concepts they need to master? Yeah? They *need* to master? Do they?

What literature and concepts would those be? I don't think I have ever represented that a person would never need to learn anything after they moved on. Music is a well with no bottom, you can always tap into and learn things from it.

I know theory but I still found it a good idea to learn Jazz from Jimmy Bruno, when I was interested in exploring it in more depth.

Regarding Classical notation: You seem to operate under a misguided notion of the value I place upon your opinion.

Circle of 5ths is a universal illustrative tool used in part, to teach key signatures. It's a concept and a method found everywhere. That definitely fits into the idea of "Traditional Method" as I stated.

To answer your question, I don't teach the circle of 5ths. Everything that you might suggest that the Co5 is designed to teach, they will already know, though other means. So, the Co5, as I see it, is useless, and pointless.

I'm also having a hard time understanding what the traditional method is just from reading this thread. From what I understand here, it sounds like the traditional method is supposed to take a long time and expects people to gradually make connections on their own by using various patterns and mnemonic devices. Is this a fair definition?

And no offense, but if you won't describe your teaching method (or at least some alternative to traditional), then how would anyone else be expected know why you feel the circle of fifths is pointless or what other concept replaces its use? Not that I rely on it for anything.

I'm also having a hard time understanding what the traditional method is just from reading this thread. From what I understand here, it sounds like the traditional method is supposed to take a long time and expects people to gradually make connections on their own by using various patterns and mnemonic devices. Is this a fair definition?

And no offense, but if you won't describe your teaching method (or at least some alternative to traditional), then how would anyone else be expected know why you feel the circle of fifths is pointless or what other concept replaces its use? Not that I rely on it for anything.

Hey cjohnson - I think that's a very good way to define it, absolutely. I did mention musictheory.net as a great example of this. That is at the very least, a specific example with many specific lessons, and explanations, and ideas presented.

Even if nothing else makes sense as a Traditional way, let's do that one and I will call that the "Traditional Method" and its one people delight in suggesting to others. I think it sucks.

No offense taken, by the way.

I don't think anyone from the outside could know "why" I feel the way I do about these concepts; wouldn't that require them to have my perspective?

How are you, cj going to be able to appreciate what I know, and thereby say "Ah yeah, I agree", or "I disagree"?

I don't see how that is even possible from an outsiders point of view. That fits the characteristic that defines what an outsiders point of view is.

I think it would be more constructive to list what people find problematic with whatever you just defined, as the traditional method:

Bob wants to learn music theory. He plays the guitar, he wants it for the guitar. Here's the first page of the site:

Not from your perspective, mind you, but from one who is brand new and doesn't know anything about theory yet. This is his first page. This is what we give them, right?

Start there.

EDIT: Since I respect you.

I'll at least describe my approach, without going into the nuts and bolts of the "how", for one thing:

I teach how to name every triad, and extended chord there is. Correctly, and quickly.

By saying this I mean it's immediate. Not just in concept, "I understand how to do it, but I cant actually, you know DO it...". But, "I can do this in real time."

What that also gives them:

Intervals.

Chord knowledge correct to the actual notes. Whats E7#9

Circle of 5ths

Diatonic Harmony.

Eliminates any need for a chord book to learn chords and patterns and shapes. With knowing the Notes on the Neck, they can apply it to the guitar, as well. This includes inversions, partials, quartals, harmonic clusters, and open and closed voicings

That's as a start. There's more, but that's an alternative that's better. If you can name any chord on the planet faster than most could Google it, that covers a lot of ground.

When you say well rounded, are you speaking of sight reading and such?

I sightread. But I have long held that sight reading for the most part is useless, for most people on guitar. You can function perfectly without it, and theory can be understood and applied correctly, without sight reading abilities.

I think you need it if:

1. You're planning on going into Jazz, ensembles etc. Must of that music is istll in standard notation.

2. You're going into classical guitar, though most classical guitar studies use a notation specific to classical guitar.

3. You're going to be a composer, work with orchestration, etc. Counterpoint, SATB, chorale, etc.

4. You're going to be a studio musician and working with the bandleader, producer and studio time is money (think Tommy Tedesco, Brent Mason, Carl Verheyen and Dan Huff)

5. You need it because you plan on auditioning and enrolling in a music school. As you may recall, in the time I've been here on UG I've "boot camped" 5 people from on here, in that skillset, to get them where they passed their auditions. So, even in a pinch, contextually, we were able to get them ready with their sight reading to get entrance.

6. It's personally meaningful to you.

I agree that conceptually it makes you well rounded, but in my professional opinion, as a teacher, the time should be expended if you're actually going to need it, and use it, proportional to the time that it takes to become proficient at it. If you're not going to be immediately applying it, I suggest that you spend time on things that you'll use today, and learn that skill in context with an interest that directly uses that, later on.

I've had students graduate, and turn around and then want to learn sightreading, because they already had everything else, and this sort of completed it for them, even if they weren't going to use it as much, it meant something to them.

Best,

Sean

Naw, they just tend to handle more topics in smaller doses better than fewer topics in large doses. Everything comes up together and nothing falls behind just as nothing ever seems to pull a clear lead.

Regarding Classical notation: You seem to operate under a misguided notion of the value I place upon your opinion.

Sean

Thats a very interesting way of saying, "I was wrong."

I wouldn't even care if I didnt think younger, slightly more naive players might think you were right

^ Guitar players dont read lead sheets anymore? Every kid I knew in highschool could do it Also, Bach has one of the largest canons that guitar players utilize (lute music, as well as his piano and violin music). Shall we have them learn it by ear?

Oh well, I guess theres a reason for the joke

How do you get a guitarist to shut up? Put sheet music in front of him

Yeah, I can see how that would be hard for a total beginner. This, as a first lesson, is probably unhelpful to an absolute beginner because it's emphasizing the ability to read sheet music - a skill that many successful guitarists don't even bother with. This would assume right away that you know the letter name of every note on the fretboard.

I think what piqued my interest on this thread was how I can relate to the frustration of spending years trying to make sense of certain concepts, only to look back and realize that it was not very difficult to understand at all. I probably learned via traditional method as I am primarily self taught (my first and only guitar lesson came after 8 years of going it alone). Lately, I've been trying to make sense of everything in a root/interval way, but I first learned guitar by reading tab and looking up basic chords.